The process of raking and baling hay or other grasses is a time intensive one, ordinarily requiring at least two passes over the cut hay and the use of up to two tractors and operators. In the event the raked hay is wet and not quite ready for baling, a tedder or fluffer rake is often used to fluff the raked hay, introducing a third step into the operation of processing the cut hay and possibly another tractor and operator.
The time involved in performing the above operations is significant and leads to increased costs that must be shouldered by the farmer who is, in almost all cases, carefully watching his or her bottom line. Efficiency and cost savings are therefore of paramount importance.
While prior users have combined the raking and baling operations such that they may be accomplished in one pass, nobody has combined those two operations such that no modifications whatsoever are required to either the tractor or the baler. In fact, while prior users have addressed the problems associated with the time and effort involved in making more than one pass over a field to gather and otherwise process the cut hay, none of those users have been able to achieve the efficiency, ease of operation, and cost savings associated with the current inventive device.
In acknowledging and attempting to address die problems associated with gathering and baling hay and other grasses, the bottom line to the farmer seems to have been overlooked in all the prior art. The various efforts at combining the raking and baling operations have either taken the form of attaching the rake mechanism to the baler., or attaching the rake arms to the tractor, wherein the baler is towed by the tractor and operates in the normal manner. Both of the foregoing approaches, however, are plagued with either or all of the following: a high initial investment, reduced flexibility and a high risk safety factor.
The primary disadvantage of attaching the rake to the tractor is that once the rakes are attached to the tractor, they are not easily removable and the usefulness of the tractor for other farming operations while the rakes are attached is significantly diminished. Furthermore, regardless of whether the rake arms are attached to the front end of the tractor or are mounted between the front and rear wheels of the tractor, an excessive amount of dust is created during the raking process, creating problems such as reducing the operator's visibility, health, increasing the operator's fatigue, obstructing parts vital to the tractor's proper performance and generally leading to a host of other dust related problems.
The primary disadvantage associated with merely retrofitting the baler to accept the attachment of a rake mechanism is that the operator is limited to using the specific type of baler that has been retrofitted to accept the rake. Furthermore, once attached to the baler, removal of the rake from the baler necessarily involves the use of overhead lifting devices or similar equipment. As such, the operator's flexibility is greatly diminished insofar as swapping out different types of balers (round, square, etc.) or merely attaching other hay processing equipment to the rake mechanism, such as a tedder rake for fluffing the raked hay, prior to baling, or using the rake in its original configuration.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,404,702 ('702) issued Apr. 11, 1995 to Lewis for a "Retrofittable Wide Windrow Apparatus" discloses a pullable rake having a baler attached to the rear of the rake. The disclosure is principally directed to a baler permanently attached to the rake, but the specification does disclose that the baler may be removably attached to the rake. Lewis, however, fails to provide the advantages of the present rake apparatus. For example, removable does not equate to interchangeability. Removable includes cutting the baler away from the rake, which would destroy any capacity to re-attach the baler, attach a different baler, or attach a different piece of processing equipment.
Further evidence that removability does not equate to interchangeability is revealed by the structure of the Lewis rake. The frame of the Lewis rake is not provided with wheels or any other structure which supports the frame, and more importantly supports a rear hitch, off of the ground after the baler has been removed. Thus, once the baler is removed, the rear of the frame drops to the ground, exerting undesirable strain on the frame attachment to the tractor, and damaging the attachment mechanism of the frame to the tractor. Removing the Lewis baler requires the frame to be lifted up in order to re-attach the baler. Manually lifting the frame to re-attach the baler is difficult, if not physically impossible, requiring another piece of equipment such as a winch or a crane to lift the frame into position for re-mounting the baler. It is clear that removing the baler from the Lewis rake does not facilitate exchanging the baler for another type of baler or a different piece of processing equipment.
Lewis discloses rake arms equipped with small wheels to facilitate pulling the rake arms with the frame, but the location of the wheels is proximate to the tractor hitch, not the baler attachment. Further, the wheels are attached to the rake arms, not to the frame. The arm wheels of Lewis do not provide adequate support to the frame to facilitate interchanging the baler with another piece of equipment.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,685,135 ('035) issued Nov. 11, 1997 to Menichetti for a "Pull Type V-Rake" discloses a pullable rake having weight bearing wheels attached to a transverse element at the rear of the rake. The Menichetti rake does not provide any means for attaching processing equipment behind the rake. Further, the rear wheels of Menichetti are not adapted to accommodate processing implements having different sizes and configurations towed behind the rake.
Neither the '702 nor the '035 patent is concerned with providing interchangeable processing equipment to the rake. This is evident from the lack of structural elements, in either patent, to provide for exchanging selected processing implements, together with the lack of any teaching, suggestion, or motivation to provide for interchangeability of processing equipment.